Todd Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37208, USA; 7Systems Biology and Bioinformatics Group, University of Rostock, Universitätsplatz 1, 18055 Rostock, Germany; 8School of Computer Science, Carl
Trang 1Gilles Clermont 1 , Charles Auffray 2 , Yves Moreau 3 , David M Rocke 4 ,
Address: 1Department of Critical Care Medicine and CRISMA laboratory, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Scaife 602,
3550 Terrace, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA; 2Functional Genomics and Systems Biology for Health, CNRS Institute of Biological Sciences,
7, rue Guy Moquet, BP8 94801 Villejuif Cedex, France; 3K.U Leuven, ESAT/SCD, Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee, Belgium; 4Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616, USA; 5Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers and Göteborg University, SE 41296, Göteborg, Sweden; 6Department of Surgery, Meharry Medical College, 1005 Dr D.B Todd Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37208, USA; 7Systems Biology and Bioinformatics Group, University of Rostock, Universitätsplatz 1, 18055 Rostock, Germany; 8School of Computer Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada; 9Computational Biology Unit Molecular Biotechnology Center, University of Torino, Via Nizza 52, I, 10126 Torino, Italy; 10Institutionen för Medicin, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Solna, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden; 11Computational Medicine Center, University of Cincinnati, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA; 12Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, College of Engineering, University of Tennessee, 1122 Volunteer Boulevard, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA; 13The Unit for Clinical Systems Biology, The Queen Silvia Children’s Hospital, Gothenburg 40530, Sweden
Corresponding author: Gilles Clermont, cler@pitt.edu
A
Ab bssttrraacctt
Systems biology has matured considerably as a discipline over the last decade, yet some of the
key challenges separating current research efforts in systems biology and clinically useful results
are only now becoming apparent As these gaps are better defined, the new discipline of systems
medicine is emerging as a translational extension of systems biology How is systems medicine
defined? What are relevant ontologies for systems medicine? What are the key theoretic and
methodologic challenges facing computational disease modeling? How are inaccurate and
incomplete data, and uncertain biologic knowledge best synthesized in useful computational
models? Does network analysis provide clinically useful insight? We discuss the outstanding
difficulties in translating a rapidly growing body of data into knowledge usable at the bedside
Although core-specific challenges are best met by specialized groups, it appears fundamental that
such efforts should be guided by a roadmap for systems medicine drafted by a coalition of
scientists from the clinical, experimental, computational, and theoretic domains
Published: 29 September 2009
Genome Medicine 2009, 11::88 (doi:10.1186/gm88)
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be
found online at http://genomemedicine.com/content/1/9/88
Received: 15 May 2009 Revised: 11 June 2009 Accepted: 15 September 2009
© 2009 Clermont et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
C
Co orrrre essp ponden ncce e
Recent years have seen the rise of systems biology as a
legitimate discipline Although consensus exists about what
the fundamental tools are (high-throughput data from
several biologic scales, high-definition imaging, and
compu-tational modeling), no such consensus exists as to what
defines the broad agenda of systems biology A growing
awareness is found that, despite such major technologic advances, fundamental obstacles separate systems biology from clinical applications Bridging these gaps will require a focused and concerted effort What defines systems medicine
as a discipline? What should it seek to accomplish? How should knowledge from disparate sources be assembled into ontologies relevant to systems medicine? How are multiscale
Trang 2data to be synthesized by corresponding multiscale models?
What is the burden of proof that such models are valid and
predictive of clinically relevant outcomes? Is network
analysis a useful tool for systems medicine?
Physicians, basic scientists, mathematicians, statisticians
and computer scientists met at the Third Bertinoro Systems
Biology workshop [1], sponsored by the University of
Bologna, focused on the theme ‘Systems Biology Meets the
Clinic’ to address these questions Participants sought to
identify key challenges facing the successful translation of
systems biology to the clinical arena and discussed and
debated a roadmap seeking to address them The meeting,
held over a 4-day period, comprised plenary lectures followed
by extensive thematic discussions, formal and informal,
centered on the theme of systems medicine as a distinct
translational discipline [2]
D
De effiin niin ngg ssyysstte em mss m me ed diicciin ne e
Workshop participants proposed that systems medicine be
defined as the application of systems biology to the
prevention of, understanding and modulation of, and
recovery from developmental disorders and pathologic
processes in human health Although no clear boundary
exists between systems biology and systems medicine, it
could be stated that systems biology is aimed at a
funda-mental understanding of biologic processes and ultimately at
an exhaustive modeling of biologic networks, whereas
systems medicine emphasizes that the essential purpose and
relevance of models is translational, aimed at diagnostic,
predictive, and therapeutic applications Accordingly,
advances in systems medicine must be assessed on both a
medical and more basic biologic scale, as the
correspon-dence between medicine and biology is intricate Some
seemingly straightforward biologic models may have an
important medical impact, although some impressively
complex molecular models may not be immediately
medically relevant Whereas systems biology may have so far
focused primarily on the molecular scale, systems medicine
must directly incorporate mesoscale clinical information
into its models; in particular, classic clinical variables,
biomarkers, and medical imaging data As an example, it has
become increasingly clear that prognostic and predictive
models for malignant tumors using expression data cannot
ignore information from classic prognostic indices [3]
Furthermore, because of the necessary multiscale nature of
the models bridging embedded levels of organization from
molecules, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, and all the way
to individuals, environmental factors, populations, and
ecosystems, systems medicine aims to discover and select
the key factors at each level and integrate them into models
of translational relevance, which include measurable
readouts and clinical predictions Such an approach is
expected to be most valuable when the execution of all
experi-ments necessary to validate sufficiently detailed models is limited by time, expenses (e.g., in animal models), or basic ethical considerations (e.g., human experimentation) Systems medicine as a discipline did not emerge from clinical medicine, but draws its relevance from it Conversely, advances in systems biology created the necessary conditions and tools for the emergence of systems medicine
Accordingly, although it may be appropriate to position systems medicine as an extension of systems biology from a historical perspective, the former also draws from several other disciplines, such as clinical medicine and population epidemiology, less familiar to systems biologists
S Sccaalle e ssp pe ecciiffiicc m mo od de elliin ngg vve errssu uss m mu ullttiissccaalle e m mo od de elliin ngg Computational models have for the most part attempted to assimilate massive data streams collected by using global measurement technologies (techniques that look at the complete set of genes, transcripts, proteins, metabolites, or other features in an organism) by using high-throughput techniques and have been, by and large, scale specific Such attempts target the development of predictive mathematic and computational models of functional and regulatory biologic networks Specific biologic hypotheses can thus be tested by designing a series of relevant perturbation experiments [4] Clear merit inheres in such an incremental approach, yet its true potential is likely to be realized only when such data-driven, bottom-up approaches are com-bined with top-down, model-driven approaches to generate new medically relevant knowledge
An open question is whether integrative systems-biology approaches can reveal underlying principles related to the aforementioned biologic functions It is probably improper
to speak of the existence of biologic laws in the sense of physical laws, yet probably deeper dynamic principles guide the evolution of biologic systems Energetic and physical constraints play an important role in all scale-specific models Additional principles at play across multiple scales
in biologic systems are far less apparent Thus, it appears prudent at this stage that top-down and multiscale models seek to recapitulate scale-specific observables As mentioned previously, if computational models are to be validated by experiments such as randomized clinical trials and become predictive of therapeutic interventions, relevant system observables must be included
O
On ntto ollo oggiie ess rre elle evvaan ntt tto o ssyysstte em mss m me ed diicciin ne e Considerable attention should be paid to the development of ontologies relevant to systems medicine Such ontologies must reflect knowledge based on biologic function, rather than on biologic structure Indeed, structure is permissive to function, and clearly, a wide variety of structures could have evolved, under genetic, molecular, or physical constraints to
Trang 3accomplish a given function Examples include energy
generation and storage and transmission of information
The recent emphasis on mapping structure into function is
vital to the advancement of systems medicine In addition, it
appears that the development of appropriate ontologies
could promote a (re)interpretation of empiric evidence in
light of such ontologies As an example, experimental data
often appear to support contradictory hypotheses of limited
scope, when in fact the evidence can be reconciled under a
broader synthesis of the evidence
Progress in developing meaningful ontologies for systems
medicine will challenge our current intuition of the nature of
a biologic function Recent efforts at data reduction for
longitudinal expression data, by using principal-component
analysis to identify and monitor health and disease
“trajec-tories”, represent an attempt at understanding such
“eigen-processes” from a data-driven perspective [5,6] Typically
and unfortunately, such processes have limited intuitive
meaning when interpreted through the prisms of currently
existing ontologies Alternatively, existing community (for
example, Gene Ontology (GO)) or commercial efforts aimed
at developing a phenotype-driven ontology (e.g., annotating
genes to a priori defined functions such as “cell-cycle” or
“inflammatory response”) are commendable and clearly of
great value, although it is apparent that extensive
cross-contamination exists between such functional assignments
and the response to even the simplest experimental
pertur-bation of functions Knowledge representations relevant to
systems medicine will probably lie within this spectrum, and
computational efforts will likely be crucial to their
development
Both data-driven techniques and simulation-based
tech-niques open possibilities of reinterpreting what is meant by
biologic function, yielding new knowledge representations
Multiscale models that include phenotypes as inputs or
readouts will provide mechanistic insight into the dynamic
interplay of such redefined functions, and plausibly suggest
phenotypically based therapeutic targets
N
Ne ew w k kn no ow wlle ed dgge e aan nd d ffaallsse e d diisscco ovve erryy
Experimental design and statistical analysis should be dealt
with rigorously, as they play essential roles in discovery and
validation in systems biology and medicine [7] Study design
is often the weakest point of complex molecular studies in
systems biology and medicine For example, patients with a
disease such as ovarian cancer may be compared with
normal controls to discern aberrant regulation of pathways
If controls are not carefully selected to be comparable with
patients demographically and in other covariates (age, sex,
income, social class), then differences observed may be
attributable to factors other than the disease
Researchers are often unduly optimistic about sample sizes required to show differences, and they fail to consider many confounding effects Interindividual variability in humans can be large, often the largest effect in a study This provides
an avenue for exploration of individual effects, leading to personalized medicine, but also can make detection of differences across subjects quite difficult
High-throughput technologies have introduced new challenges to experimental design and interpretation of results Avoiding false positives may result in difficulties in identifying true positive Standard approaches to correcting for multiple-testing on datasets generated by global analysis, such as expression microarray, rely on the incorrect assumption that each value is independent of other values More recent approaches do not fully resolve this problem [8] Greatly increasing sample sizes is generally impractical
A more practical approach is to make increased use of a priori biologic knowledge, either by trimming the list of analytes to a relatively small number for which the multiple-testing correction is modest, or by multiple-testing pathways or groups of genes [9] This is usually done not by testing every group of genes defined by a GO term or a Kyoto Encyclo-pedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway, but by selectively testing those thought to be of importance Because this more-focused approach, in its effort to improve specificity, is ontology dependent, it may bear a subjective element as to the certainty of prior knowledge It, therefore, also carries the risk of lacking sensitivity
Addressing the previously mentioned challenges may have direct clinical implications A frequent problem encountered
by clinicians is that patients appearing to have the same disease may not respond to the same treatment Some patients even experience severe adverse effects from the treatment Variable treatment response is also one of the most important causes of the huge costs involved in drug development Taken together, these cause both increased suffering and costs Ideally, physicians should be able, routinely and noninvasively, to measure a few diagnostic biomarkers to personalize medication for each patient At present, not enough knowledge exists about the causes for variable treatment responses in most common diseases However, recent studies of genetic markers for response to treatment with anticoagulants indicate that personalized dosage may become a clinical reality within the next 5 to
10 years [10] The main problems involved in finding markers for personalized dosage are that each complex disease may involve altered interactions between hundreds
or thousands of genes that can differ among patients This heterogeneity may, in turn, depend on both genetic and environmental factors In addition to this complexity, significant problems are involved in clinical research Ideally, a study aiming to find markers for personalized medication would involve a known external cause, a key cell
Trang 4type, and a read-out, all of which can be studied
experi-mentally in patient samples
For most complex diseases, all of these factors are not
readily available It is therefore important to find model
diseases, in which all those factors can be studied together in
patient samples by using high-throughput technologies and
systems biologic principles [11] Such model diseases might
be used to develop and apply the methods required to find
markers for personalized medicine
It also has been suggested that the same methods might be
applied to find markers to predict the risk of developing
disease [12] If successful, this may lead to a new era of
preventive medicine Finally, the methods may be of great
value for drug development If it were possible to predict
which patients respond to medication, this would result in
increased efficacy and reduced risk of not being able to market
drugs that have been developed at great cost Conversely,
delineation of patients that do not respond to a medication
may help to develop new drugs for that specific subgroup We
suggest that acute inflammatory diseases, such as severe
trauma, sepsis, and pancreatitis, might be very attractive test
beds for the development of such methods Similarly, chronic
ailments, such as diabetes and other autoimmune disorders,
meet several of the criteria mentioned earlier and are of
prominent clinical and societal relevance
N
Ne ettw wo orrk k aan naallyyssiiss
A network represents a set of objects and their mutual
relations Much biologic and medical knowledge can be
naturally represented as networks: protein-interaction
networks, metabolic networks, gene co-expression networks,
disease networks, and many more Growing concerns regard
current trends in network analysis in systems biology and
potential extension to the clinical arena through the
construction of “diseasomes” [13] Do network
representa-tions actually convey new knowledge, or are they just a
convenient and eye-catching way to represent data? How
can such networks be used to extract new information that is
relevant to understanding biologic systems and guiding
clinical practice? Are current approaches adequately
repre-senting the types of entities and the specific nature of their
relations that determine disease pathophysiologic processes?
What challenges might be resolved and opportunities
opened for both basic research and clinical practice if
standards could be broadly adopted in our knowledge
representation, data collection, publication, and reasoning,
and if fundamental chemical, physical, and biologic entities
and processes could be included in network representations?
How might this be enabled by the adoption of
disease-oriented ontologies? From a mathematic and computational
perspective, what topologic, dynamic, and conditional
properties could allow the identification of the nodes in a
network whose perturbation would yield adversely affected
or clinically improved biologic states?
Although the methods used to analyze networks might still be primitive, they are already providing useful information, especially on the genetics of disease It is now possible to integrate information from various biologic networks to identify genes involved in both mendelian and complex diseases In such research efforts, careful thought must be given to how network inferences from microarray and other types of data are evaluated The development of such tools should ideally involve an open dialogue between experi-mentalists, modelers, and clinicians, who should be able to assess tools best suited to their application A need exists for systematic benchmark testing and comparative evaluation of the major tools available For example, current methods tend
to focus more on testing performance capabilities over simulated data or for functional enrichment in GO categories that may not be very relevant to clinically relevant phenomena The identification of both disease-causative genes and potential therapeutics has begun to be approached by using integrative network-relevant methods for knowledge representation and reasoning [14,15] Another possibility is the identification of specific interactions that have been extensively validated, a so-called ‘gold standard’ for the identification of causal, mechanistic, and deterministic factors in a complex network Some of these issues have been raised within the Dialogue on Reverse Engineering Assessment and Methods (DREAM) initiative [16] For example, representing gene interactions with graph algorithms may be a useful method to discover parts of a network that are not fully resolved [17] The biologic plausibility of such representations could then be integrated with other technologies and discussed with basic biologists and clinicians Another approach is to extend network analysis to evaluate disease-specific ontologies [18]
C
Co on nccllu ussiio on nss aan nd d rre ecco om mm me endaattiio on nss
We consider that improvements in academic infrastructure are sorely needed to facilitate cross-disciplinary trans-lational studies that can someday connect what can be learned by using model organisms with real-time samples from patients Such improvements include, but are not limited to sufficient funding, appropriate development of mechanisms allowing academic recognition of all partici-pants of transdisciplinary teams, the creation of centers of excellence in systems medicine and specific training programs, and enhancement of the attractiveness of a medical career for individuals with training in quantitative fields Recognition of systems medicine in the clinical arena should be promoted at the professional society and journal editorial levels Indeed, whereas bioinformatics exercises can access mainstream clinical literature on account of the value of a significance test, the burden of proof appears
Trang 5disproportionately higher for computational disease and
therapeutic models of clinical relevance Additionally, the
construction of a roadmap for systems medicine, facilitated
by enhanced visibility in the more clinically oriented medical
literature, will be essential to chart effort and progress We
present essential elements of such a roadmap, as well as
underlying rationale (Figure 1)
A serious and useful dialogue between the clinic and systems
biology has begun We hope that future developments will
provide continuing evidence that the systems-biology
community has taken this development to its heart, building
systems medicine on a millennium of scholarship and
medical tradition
A
Ab bb brre evviiaattiio on nss
DREAM = dialogue on reverse engineering assessment and
methods; GO = gene ontolology; KEGG = Kyoto
Encyclo-pedia of Genes and Genomes
C
Co om mp pe ettiin ngg iin ntte erre essttss The authors declare that they have no competing interests
A
Au utth ho orrss’’ cco on nttrriib bu uttiio on nss All authors contributed text on their specific domains of expertise GC collated text All authors reviewed the assembled text for accuracy
A Acck kn no ow wlle ed dgge emen nttss
We thank Michael Langston, Devdatt Dubhashi, and Mikael Benson for organizing the Bertinoro Systems Biology workshop, and the Bertinoro University Center, University of Bologna, for their generous support of the workshop
R
Re effe erre en ncce ess
1 TThhiirrdd BBeerrttiinnoorroo SSyysstteemmss BBiiooggyy wwoorrkksshhop [http://www.cs.utk edu/~langston/BSB2009/]
2 Auffray C, Chen Z, Hood L: SSyysstteemmss mmeeddiicciinnee:: tthhee ffuuttuurree ooff mmeeddiiccaall ggeennoommiiccss aanndd hheeaalltthhccaarree Genome Med 2009, 11:2
F
Fiigguurree 11
A roadmap for systems medicine
Promoting entities
Biotechnology industry Pharmaceutical industry
s
Trang 63 Eden P, Ritz C, Rose C, Ferno M, Peterson C: ““GGoood oolldd”” cclliinniiccaall
m
maarrkkeerrss hhaavvee ssiimmiillaarr ppoowweerr iinn bbrreeaasstt ccaanncceerr pprrooggnnoossiiss aass mmiiccrrooaarrrraayy
ggeene eexprreessssiioonn pprrooffiilleerrss Eur J Cancer 2004, 4400:1837-1841
4 Kitano H: CCoommppuuttaattiioonnaall ssyysstteemmss bbiioollooggyy Nature 2002, 4
420:206-210
5 Calvano SE, Xiao W, Richards DR, Felciano RM, Baker HV, Cho RJ,
Chen RO, Brownstein BH, Cobb JP, Tschoeke SK, Miller-Graziano
C, Moldawer LL, Mindrinos MN, Davis RW, Tompkins RG, Lowry
SF: AA nneettwwoorrkk bbaasseedd aannaallyyssiiss ooff ssyysstteemmiicc iinnffllaammmmaattiioonn iinn hhuummaannss
Nature 2005, 4437:1032-1037
6 McDunn JE, Husain KD, Polpitiya AD, Burykin A, Ruan J, Li Q,
Schierding W, Lin N, Dixon D, Zhang W, Coopersmith CM, Dunne
WM, Colonna M, Ghosh BK, Cobb JP: PPllaassttiicciittyy ooff tthhee ssyysstteemmiicc
iinnffllaammmmaattoorryy rreesspponssee ttoo aaccuuttee iinnffeeccttiioonn dduurriinngg ccrriittiiccaall iillllnneessss:: ddeevve
ell o
oppmenntt ooff tthhee rriibboolleeukooggrraamm PLoS ONE 2008, 33:e1564
7 Rocke DM: DDeessiiggnn aanndd aannaallyyssiiss ooff eexpeerriimmeennttss wwiitthh hhiigghh tthhrroouugghhputt
b
biioollooggiiccaall aassssaayy ddaattaa Semin Cell Dev Biol 2004, 1155:703-713
8 Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y: CCoonnttrroolllliinngg tthhee ffaallssee ddiissccoovveerryy rraattee:: aa
p
prraaccttiiccaall aanndd ppoowweerrffuull aapppprrooaacchh ttoo mmuullttiippllee tteessttiinngg Proc Royal Stat
Soc Series B-Methods 1995, 5577:289-300
9 Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL,
Gillette MA, Paulovich A, Pomeroy SL, Golub TR, Lander ES,
Mesirov JP: GGeene sseett eennrriicchhmenntt aannaallyyssiiss:: aa kknnoowwlleeddggee bbaasseedd
aapppprrooaacchh ffoorr iinntteerrpprreettiinngg ggeennoommee wwiiddee eexprreessssiioonn pprrooffiilleess Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 1102:15545-15550
10 Takeuchi F, McGinnis R, Bourgeois S, Barnes C, Eriksson N, Soranzo
N, Whittaker P, Ranganath V, Kumanduri V, McLaren W, Holm L,
Lindh J, Rane A, Wadelius M, Deloukas P: AA ggeennoommee wwiiddee aasssso
occiiaa ttiion ssttuuddyy ccoonnffiirrmmss VVKKOORRCC11,, CCYYPP22C9,, aanndd CCYYPP4F22 aass pprriinncciippaall
ggeenettiicc ddeetteerrmmiinnaannttss ooff wwaarrffaarriinn ddoossee PLoS Genet 2009,
5
5:e1000433
11 Mobini R, Andersson BA, Erjefalt J, Hahn-Zoric M, Langston MA, Perkins AD, Cardell LO, Benson M: AA mmoodduullee bbaasseedd aannaallyyttiiccaall ssttrraatt e
eggyy ttoo iiddenttiiffyy nnoovveell ddiisseeaassee aassssoocciiaatteedd ggeeness sshhoowwss aann iinnhhiibbiittoorryy rroollee ffoorr iinntteerrlleeukiinn 77 rreecceeppttoorr iinn aalllleerrggiicc iinnffllaammmmaattiioonn BMC Syst Biol 2009, 33:19
12 Hood L, Heath JR, Phelps ME, Lin B: SSyysstteemmss bbiioollooggyy aanndd nneeww tteecch h n
noollooggiieess eennaabbllee pprreeddiiccttiivvee aanndd pprreevveennttaattiivvee mmeeddiicciinne Science 2004, 3
306:640-643
13 Barabasi AL: NNeettwwoorrkk mmeeddiicciinnee:: ffrroomm oobbeessiittyy ttoo tthhee ““ddiisseeaassoommee ””N Engl J Med 2007, 3357:404-407
14 Chen J, Aronow BJ, Jegga AG: DDiisseeaassee ccaannddiiddaattee ggeene iiddenttiiffiiccaattiioonn aanndd pprriioorriittiizzaattiioonn uussiinngg pprrootteeiinn iinntteerraaccttiioonn nneettwwoorrkkss BMC Bioinfor-matics 2009, 1100:73
15 Nitsch D, Tranchevent LC, Thienpont B, Thorrez L, Van EH, Devriendt K, Moreau Y: NNeettwwoorrkk aannaallyyssiiss ooff ddiiffffeerreennttiiaall eexprreessssiioonn ffoorr tthhee iiddenttiiffiiccaattiioonn ooff ddiisseeaassee ccaauussiinngg ggeeness PLoS ONE 2009, 4
4:e5526
16 Stolovitzky G, Monroe D, Califano A: DDiiaalloogguuee oonn rreevveerrssee eennggiinneee err iinngg aasssseessssmmeenntt aanndd mmeetthhodss:: tthhee DDRREEAAMM ooff hhiigghh tthhrroouugghhputt p
paatthhwwaayy iinnffeerreennccee Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007, 111155:1-22
17 Voy BH, Scharff JA, Perkins AD, Saxton AM, Borate B, Chesler EJ, Branstetter LK, Langston MA: EExxttrraaccttiinngg ggeene nneettwwoorrkkss ffoorr lloow w d
doossee rraaddiiaattiioonn uussiinngg ggrraapphh tthheorreettiiccaall aallggoorriitthhmmss PLoS Comput Biol
2006, 22:757-768
18 Qu XA, Gudivada RC, Jegga AG, Neumann EK, Aronow BJ: IInnffeerrrriinngg n
noovveell ddiisseeaassee iinnddiiccaattiioonnss ffoorr kknnoown ddrruuggss bbyy sseemmaannttiiccaallllyy lliinnkkiinngg d
drruugg aaccttiioonn aanndd ddiisseeaassee mmeecchhaanniissmm rreellaattiioonnsshhiippss BMC Bioinformat-ics 2009, 1100 SSuuppll 55:S4